User talk:Thumperward/Archive 65

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Thumperward. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 60

←

Archive 63

→

Sandy Bridge

RE:

Could you explain what you wish to see with the article in the discussion page?

203.116.251.233 (talk) 13:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:LEAD. The article lead should be a more-or-less full summary of the article contents, rather than simply a brief introduction. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

There has been some work on this. I tried to add some context and explain some buzzwords, which is what I thought the major problem was. Not every wikipedia reader would know what a 32nm was for example. The article is mostly bullets and tables of gigahertz, so there is not much else to summarize I would think. I did add a statement about it covering a wide range of applications, but I think it would be best to avoid the details creeping back into the lead. There seems to be a lot of brownian motion from anonymous editors, alas. Could you take another look and see if you think the complain tags are still merited? Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

There's still nothing in the lead regarding features of the platform nor its relative performance. These are key parts of the article, and as such must be included in a full lead. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Your ref links request

You added {{ref improve|date=November 2011}} and {{copy edit|date=November 2011}} to the pressure cooking page yesterday. Unfortunately, finding suitable web ref links for that page has been problematic. At one time, I used a website for refs that's written by an expert at pressure cooking for citing ref links see here, but people complained about it because the website was considered "commercial" just because it shows users about the sale of the author's book! I've not found any other web refs. That would have been an excellent site for web refs, as it has good factual pages examples. Please discuss in that page's discussion what improvements you would like to see and feel free to make the improvements to the page. :) I've spent many hours editing that page during the past 3 - 4 years, as it was missing lots of essential information. TurboForce (talk) 12:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI, references were removed in this edit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I remember when those references were removed. I would like to see someone find ref links for that page. Maybe using book refs may be the only way of doing this without causing World War III on Wikipedia? Disputes about ref links is a very common problem on Wikipedia. If only people would actually explain HOW to improve the situation instead of just doing the easy thing and delete chunks of pages just because THEY don't like what they're reading, then they will argue forever "it's not right" and never discuss how to go about improving it. TurboForce (talk) 12:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Infobox lake

Does {{Infobox lake}} need a conditional statement for each parameter? It obfuscates, apparently needlessly, the templates's workings. Am I missing something? If not, I wonder if you'd kindly clean it up? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

How do you mean "a conditional statement for each parameter"? Isn't that the way templates are supposed to work? There's certainly a bit of cruft that could be removed from the code, but the layout itself is fairly standard from looking at it. Am I missing something? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread it, thinking it was using {{Infobox}}; worth changing it to the latter, do you think? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Always welcome. I note however that it presently uses auto-conversion of units and is thus likely a victim of the same recursion depth limits as {{infobox artwork}}. Might not be able to move forward until a proper technical solution is put in place for that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

[belatedly] Noted, thanks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Heroes of Might and Magic V (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to Dark elves

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Note to self: this was deliberate, as the words "dark elves" were previously piped to Svartálfar when that's not an appropriate undab (HOMMV dark elves owe far more directly to D&D dark elves than to one of two competing targets from Norse mythology). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Not Helpful

I'm not sure what you mean be this comment: but I am not really concerned whether or not you think anything I do around here is "helpful" (in your standards) or not. I don't comment on your motives around here, and I don't care if you're an admin. And I assure you that whatever problem you think you have with me is not going to stand to scrutiny. Good day, Thumperward. Doc talk 12:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI already has one Baseball Bugs, and that's more than enough. I don't have any "problem" with you other than that I find myself frequently skipping over the additional noise you add to the drama boards: as it isn't helpful, you may find your time better fulfilled by editing an article or something. On the other hand, this was unacceptable, and doing that again will get you rather more than a warning. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If you dared block me for a comment like that... oh, what fun we would have! I've shut more threads down on AN/I than you have, I bet, and you are the only editor who has suggested I not make "noise" there. Save it: there are over 1,000 more admins, my friend. But so many editors that need your advice... Doc talk 12:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

What on Earth. I warn an ANI gadfly for personal attacks, he apologises for it on ANI itself... and then comes to my talk page with a quite surreal attempt at intimidation. I suppose I should leave you to run along and gloat about this, or whatever you people do with your free time. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Gadfly, eh? You're losing it, buddy. I'm not an admin - but you are. I even voted for you. Your conduct is unbecoming of that position right now. Doc talk 12:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Look, this isn't going anywhere productive. I'm entitled to say what I think of your behaviour, and you're entitled to take it up with me: fair enough. Who is and is not an admin is pretty irrelevant there. The only admin-hat comment here was regarding the comment which you've now struck, so that's resolved. And so we go on with our lives. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine. But chiding me with, "Don't do that again, Doc9871" doesn't make me fear or respect that terminology, because no one else talks to me like that. If you were to block me for anything, you know it wouldn't stand after all this anyway, right? I've never even gotten a templated warning in all my time here, let alone a block from any admin. Cheers... Doc talk 13:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The point in giving you a semi-formal warning was to get you to, y'know, do what you did and retract it. When the person it was directed to asked you to retract it you said there was nothing wrong with it, so something changed. I'm not getting into a meta-argument about blocking and its social consequences: I largely don't bother with that on Wikipedia, don't use my tools in that area, and find the whole thing tiresome. What I will say is that absurdities like "a block would not stick because I have powerful friends / you were mean to me once" and the like are becoming less common over time, thankfully. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Alrighty then. Suggesting someone may have had a few too many pints could somehow be construed as a personal attack and should be retracted/stricken. But directly labeling another editor as a "gadfly" cannot be construed as a personal attack and should not be stricken. Is this correct? I just want to be clear. Doc talk 13:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You want me to apologise? Sure thing. I'm sorry I called you a "gadfly". That's quite a nasty little snipe and I had no justification for it. If I do it again you're perfectly right to take me to task for it. And I'll try not to. Deal? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I want you to see the direct conflict between what you chided me about and what you did, which was far worse than what I did. Do you not see it? Here's a better deal: don't take me to task. It's never a pretty thing; but it often can improve the project in unexpected ways. I know you're an excellent editor, and that you think my methods may be "unsound". I know what I'm doing :) Doc talk 13:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox football league

Hi Chris, further to my posts at [1] and [2] can you assist me in making the change. I can't understand what the two 'If' statements are meaning under label9. If you were able to make the basic change, or tell me exactly how to do it, I would try and update the documentation, labelling etc. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

On the label9 row, {{#if:{{{level|}}}|Level|Levels}} means "If the level parameter is set then use the label "Level": otherwise use "Levels". The next conditional on that line links to the article specified in pyramid if it's set (so if you put pyramid=English football pyramid the label is "Level on pyramid". On the data9 row the conditional puts the content of level if it's specified; otherwise it uses levels. So in actual fact, the code already does what you want it to do so long as you specify level and not levels. It's just the documentation that needs updated. As I say, we can't do away with the conditional code until the articles using the old meaning of the row are updated: if you want, I can add a tracking category to identify them all for cleanup. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

When you say "if the level parameter is set" do you mean whether the infobox has an entry on the 'levels' parameter? Looking at Football League First Division as an example, it does have an entry on that line, but it shows as 'Levels' when you view the page. So what changes need to be made to that article so as it shows as 'Level on pyramid'? Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Football League First Division has levels and not level. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I have manually changed the infobox at FLFD to show 'level'. Is there a way that a bot could make this change automatically, or are you saying you would prefer not to do this, as a number of the leagues are using the other use of the parameter, and this would need to be checked manually? I have also changed the text relating to 'level' in the parameters section of the template. I'm not sure if this is OK. Also, another query related to the FLFD infobox. Its first field in the infobox is 'logo' whereas in the template 'image' is used. Does this just mean that the template has been set up so certain words can be substituted? Maybe it's just my lack of experience with them, but I think some text could be added to make it clearer how it works, whilst appreciating you maybe don't want to make it too easy for all to edit easily. Can you let me know your thoughts on this post, and indicate what needs to be done next. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The change to the documentation looks fine. I'd still advise that articles are manually updated rather than by a bot; as I say, if you want I can create a tracking category which will show all the articles using the old system so that they can be manually inspected. You're right that the template allows either logo or image to be used interchangeably for the image (although not both at once). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "... the old system". My understanding is that currently the level/levels parameter will either have been filled out to record the level the league is at, or the number of levels in the pyramid, and the only way of checking that is to manually go through them. If you are able to do some tracking that assists the task that would be useful. How do we go about recording which entries have been checked e.g. I have made a point of checking/changing the wording at FLFD but should that be recorded somewhere? Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Thumperward. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Claret Ash 14:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Replied, thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Football

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Soccer in Australia". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ck786 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Replied over there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your note. It made a crappy morning a lot better. Literally crappy, actually: we have a dog that I want to kill for fecal infractions. Fortunately we don't have carpet yet. Happy days Chris, Drmies (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Oooh, nasty! Take care. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI Jim Sukwutput

Hi Chris,

Thanks for closing. If his behaviour continues, where should I post? I'm not asking you to reverse a decision, just for advice. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me know. Not that I expect "his behaviour" to continue, given that it was in direct response to your disruption. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Cassette Singles

Howdy. I repaired the article on Cassette singles. Your earlier removal of all text as "removing wad" of information was not really helpful. The article is indeed in need of some referencing and a general clean up - but your white washing was not the way in which to do so! regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.53.222.20 (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No edit ever rationalised with the term "whitewashing" has ever been useful on Wikipedia. The completely unsourced opinion in question has been removed again. If you wish to re-add it, either argue your case on the talk page or find a proper source. This isn't a personal website where any old bit of personal recollection should be thrown up at will. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I2P Notability

I looked for some information about I2P to see if there were any potential Reliable Sources available. I found the following candidates:

The only ones I am concerned about are the blogs. Blogs are largely unacceptable; would the blogs I've listed fall under the same scrutiny?

Thanks.

wsoder (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

None of those are brilliant sources notability-wise (even the ones which aren't obviously personal blogs are on blog-like sections of websites), but they're an awful lot better than the presently largely self-published sources on the article. Thanks! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

TFD notice

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox college rivalry

Template:Infobox college rivalry has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox college sports rivalry. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

MfD/TfD

Right Sorry. I wasn't using anything automated--just WP:TWINKLE. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I prematurely close these discussions by the reason of Forum non conveniens? ~Alison C. (Crazytales) 19:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Certainly Thanks for asking. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

AutoLISP rm opaque code example?

Can you clarify why it was removed? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AutoLISP&oldid=462863772 Jimmy Bergmark (talk) 10:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Because it was unintelligible to any reader who didn't already have a thorough understanding of Lisp (which is most of them). Language features need to be explained and referenced rather than simply shown, as the point of examples is to illustrate rather than teach content. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I still think it has a value. If I look at a language that is unfamiliar to me I like to see an example of what the code look like even without being able to understand it fully. Jimmy Bergmark (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not true for the majority of our readers, though. Wikipedia's bias towards technically-excellent editors means far too many articles feature code snippets which are incomprehensible even to readers with a technical background because they assume far too much prior knowledge. For most of our readers the difference between this piece of Lisp and any other, from looking at it, is impossible to tell. It is plausible that small code snippets highlighting particular features would be useful if attached to a good English description derived from a secondary source, but that's work for the future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't see how an article on AutoLISP can really make much sense without a code sample. However this wasn't a good one, and it was right to remove it.

It's too fragmentary. Why four?
Hello world is a bit too simplistic. We don't have space for much of a sample, so it has to count. Likewise the factorial - classic Lisp example, but not that relevant to the AutoLISP world.
The two Hellow worlds barely explain their difference. Maybe there isn't space to explain the difference, in which case we can't usefully attempt it.
The complex example is verbose, but bitty. Is all AutoLISP so unreadable, or was this unrepresentative?
None of them feel like CAD examples.

I'd like to see an AutoLISP example restored, but feel that it needs to be one good example, written especially to be an example at this scope, and it should also present some CAD-like task. How about some sort of parametric CAD? How about creating a couple of shapes in an AutoCAD drawing, but making their sizes inter-related in some mathematical manner. It's CAD and it's coding. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. A concise sample which is well-described and documented by reliable sources would be a valuable addition to an article on the subject. At this point, of course, the article is still in need of basic structure above discussion of nuances in code. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

If you have some spare time, could you center the status/scale on the top? Thanks. HurricaneFan 25 15:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. Let me know if there are any other problems. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

2011 North Indian Ocean cyclone season#Deep Depression BOB 02 Do i need to spell the problem out?.Jason Rees (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Inappropiate behavior

As a long time WP editor I am completely taken aback by your tone and method of conveying a point in this discussion right here:Advice please.

Looking through the "resurrector's" contributions, this seems to be a recurring theme (for instance, asking for The Devil's Tree to be moved to his userspace following an AfD and then restoring it, with no alterations, to mainspace while nobody was looking). This is a fairly blatant end-run around deletion by a user who doesn't hold the same notability standards as the rest of the community. There are likely more out there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Devil's Tree article was restored and I was going to add citations from the Travel Channel's special Most Terrifying Places in America. However I had some trouble finding a direct citation and unfortunely a business trip at the time delayed my edit on the page. I had in fact spoken to restoring admin at the time User:Bearian regarding this. He neither gave me a warning nor ban because it was clearly a good faith edit. He simple suggested that I do not restore the article until additions citations are added and I did not.

I find your comment above not only inappropiate for wikipedia, but completely unfounded. You jumped to conclusions without even looking through my edit history. Instead of discussing this with me you made groundless and bias attacks painting me in less than optimal light in an attempt to get an article whose restoration was clearly in good faith deleted. Based on the response on the advice please page people clearly understand the motive in my bold restoration.

Secondly what were you able to find after looking through my history? The only other article I restore without discussion was Nemu64 which I restore 9 months after AfD with additional citations. Please point out how this is a recurring theme in my past. Valoem ^talk 18:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. My "recurring theme" comment was due to being able to find a second instance of a restoration of deleted content by you within 30 seconds of investigating the original issue. I have indeed been unable to find recurrences of this, and for that I apologise. I still regard your restoration of dieselpunk to have been a bad idea for all sorts of reasons, but those are best discussed elsewhere. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)